I think blacktop paving contributes to GW. I think this every time I cross a parking lot in summer. We should rip it all up, especially in cities where there is so much of it.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Mercedes [mailto:mercedes-boun...@okiebenz.com] On Behalf Of > Meade Dillon via Mercedes > Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2015 4:26 PM > To: Mercedes <email@example.com> > Cc: Meade Dillon <dillonm...@gmail.com> > Subject: [MBZ] OT More NOAA bias toward Global Warming > > A little something to liven up the list! > > http://www.realclearpolicy.com/blog/2015/08/20/the_latest_climate_kerfuffl > e_1397.html > > August 20, 2015The Latest Climate Kerfuffle*By* *Patrick Michaels* > <http://www.realclearpolicy.com/authors/patrick_michaels/> > > Are political considerations superseding scientific ones at the National > Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration? > > When confronted with an obviously broken weather station that was reading > way too hot, they replaced the faulty sensor — but refused to adjust the bad > readings it had already taken. And when dealing with "the pause" in global > surface temperatures that is in its 19th year, the agency threw away > satellite- > sensed sea-surface temperatures, substituting questionable data that showed > no pause. > > The latest kerfuffle is local, not global, but happens to involve probably the > most politically important weather station in the nation, the one at > Washington's Reagan National Airport. > > I'll take credit for this one. I casually noticed that the monthly average > temperatures at National were departing from their 1981-2010 averages a > couple of degrees relative to those at Dulles — in the warm direction. > > Temperatures at National are almost always higher than those at Dulles, 19 > miles away. That's because of the well-known urban warming effect, as well as > an elevation difference of 300 feet. But the weather systems that determine > monthly average temperature are, in general, far too large for there to be any > significant difference in the *departure from average* at two stations as > close > together as Reagan and Dulles. Monthly data from recent decades bear this > out — until, all at once, in January 2014 and every month thereafter, the > departure from average at National was greater than that at Dulles. > > The average monthly difference for January 2014 through July 2015 is 2.1 > degrees Fahrenheit, which is huge when talking about things like record > temperatures. For example, National's all-time record last May was only 0.2 > degrees above the previous record. > > Earlier this month, I sent my findings to Jason Samenow, a terrific forecaster > who runs the *Washington Post*'s weather blog, Capital Weather Gang. He > and his crew verified what I found and wrote up their version, giving due > credit > and adding other evidence that something was very wrong at National. And, in > remarkably quick action for a government agency, the National Weather > Service swapped out the sensor within a week and found that the old one was > reading 1.7 degrees too high. Close enough to 2.1, the observed difference. > > But the National Weather Service told the Capital Weather Gang that there > will be no corrections, despite the fact that the disparity suddenly began > 19 months ago and varied little once it began. It said correcting for the > error > wouldn't be "scientifically defensible." Therefore, people can and will cite > the > May record as evidence for dreaded global warming with impunity. Only a few > weather nerds will know the truth. Over a third of this year's 37 > 90-degree-plus > days, which gives us a remote chance of breaking the all time record, should > also be eliminated, putting this summer rightly back into normal territory. > > It is really politically unwise not to do a simple adjustment on these > obviously- > too-hot data. With all of the claims that federal science is being biased in > service of the president's global-warming agenda, the agency should bend > over backwards to expunge erroneous record-high readings. > > In July, by contrast, NOAA had no problem adjusting the global temperature > history. In that case, the method they used *guaranteed* that a growing > warming trend would substitute for "the pause." They reported in *Science > *that they had replaced the pause (which shows up in every analysis of > satellite and weather balloon data) with a significant warming trend. > > Normative science says a trend is "statistically significant" if there's less > than a > 5 percent probability that it would happen by chance. NOAA claimed > significance at the 10 percent level, something no graduate student could ever > get away with. There were several other major problems with the paper. As > Judy Curry, a noted climate scientist at Georgia Tech, wrote, "color me > 'unconvinced.'" > > Unfortunately, following this with the kerfuffle over the Reagan temperature > records is only going to "convince" even more people that our government is > blowing hot air on global warming. > > *Patrick Michaels is director of the Center for the Study of Science at the > Cato > Institute.* > > > > ------------- > Max > Charleston SC > _______________________________________ > http://www.okiebenz.com > > To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ > > To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: > http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com _______________________________________ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com